The political advantage of making promises to public employees (a class which logically does include volunteer soldiers) is that other politicians who come along later have to either pay to fulfill those promises or pay a price to break the promises. Promise the moon today, and put the bill on the future. Vets, wounded and otherwise, are going to find that bumper stickers and lapel flags don't translate into continuing support for programs. After all, past service can't be revoked.

"A grim result of this bottleneck is that in the past fiscal year over $400m in retroactive benefits was paid to family members of veterans who died waiting. One such veteran was Scott Eiswert, a National Guardsman who returned from Iraq in 2005. Tortured by nightmares of roadside bombs and fallen comrades, Eiswert took to drink. When the doctors at the VA at last found time to see him they diagnosed him with PTSD. But the VA rejected his disability claims, on the ground that his condition could not be tied to specific incidents from his service. In 2008, after learning that his unit was going back to Iraq, he took his own life."

I'm sure he took his life because he wasn't getting paid and rather getting treatment for PTSD. Stupid argument "The Economist"

They aren't saying he committed suicide because the claim was denied. They said he did it because he found out his unit was going back to Iraq. There can be a lot of guilt associated with your unit and people you know going back to a warzone without you.

If architects and apologists for the US led invasion of Iraq ( the editorial writers of the Economist included ) cared half as much for these soldiers as they claimed, why did they send them to war in the first place ?

As an antiwar activist and as a resident of a military town in the US, I can say I saw all of this coming.

I don't think some of the people in the comments get it. Yes the war was horrible, we were all lied to, (Imagine coming to terms with that after being in OIF 1).

The issue now is veterans are coming home to a society that only wants to recognize war wounds when they absolutely have to. Most of the thank you's are robotic in nature, like some grim duty. Even worse some guys are obviously trying to impress women nearby with their generosity. Utilitarianism at it's finest I guess.

Mix an apathetic society (But don't blame them Bush told them to ignore the plight of their neighbor's children, just go shop right bro?) with the government's repeated failures and veterans are starting to feel a bit betrayed by their country.

Scratch that, with the whole TA thing they're pretty passed getting started on that feeling.

Veterans are being discriminated against by their own government. The #1 violator of USERRA is the US Fed Gov't. They do employ the most veterans, but these violations are not acceptable. Even with veterans preferences vets are still not getting enough federal jobs. We can do more: http://wh.gov/sAhD. Thanks for the article Economist, the more knowledge the better we can address the problem.

This is just heart breaking and unacceptable. The president needs to raise taxes and provide for the veterans - now. This Nation should be ashamed and our "leaders" in the Pentagon need to speak up. How many more need to be lost to suicide? How many more need to wait for care and help? How can this happen in America?

If any wants to understand how it is that American politicians and military leaders can ignore with impunity the very real needs of soldiers returning from war, you need only look at this website for the answer. 731 comments on the article about the anniversary of the Iraq war to 40 comments on this article on wounded soldiers. Everybody wants to chime in on past events or things that don't cost them anything, but when it comes to something as uncomfortable as caring for those who have given up their youth and their lifelong health and physical and sometimes mental abilities for their country, that is something best swept under the table. Why isn't there a National Veteran's Association with equal lobby power to the NRA? People would rather look away.

As a community college prof in a lower socio economic service area, I actually see the benefits that 2-3 years of structured service bestows. Their non veteran peers are in much worse shape - with apathy being the prevailing mindset. Imperialism was a bad idea from a few neocons who capitalized on the worldwide outpouring of sympathy following 911. Perhaps a public works focused 2 year service would be a great idea for many of Americas youth.

Well this article is well intentioned for the war vets, but it fails to address the cause of the problem: Sending men into protracted gureilla wars in the first place for GWB's personal grudge. The kindest thing one can do is to avoid sending them off to war in the first place, and acknowledge that war while sometimes necessary should be treated as a last resort and only in the most clear circumstances. (as opposed to some half cooked lies about WMDs)

Was it as much a matter of a personal grudge as it was a matter of pretty grave fear at the time (and still, I guess) as to the longevity of Saud family rule in Saudi Arabia? Did the US and UK go in to (try to) protect their petroleum hegemony from what at the time may have appeared to be a real threat in SA, owing to how many of the terrorists in the US and UK were from... Saudi Arabia? I'm not taking sides here. I just think the issues are more complex than those spouted from either polarized side.

Regardless, the VA does appear to be catching up in some areas. They're finally using the mindfulness-based meditation therapies to buttress EMDR and CBT for PTSD, and that =is= a good thing.

Oh I know that it's more complicated than it seems, but given that most of the people who read this are not necessarily political buffs I'm just addressing it to the casual level.
For example it is noted that:
AQ publicly offered Saudi Arabia to fight against Iraq in the first Gulf War, they were definitely on hostile terms due to Iraq's perceived "heretic" Shi'ite beliefs and therefore Iraq was definitely not supporting AQ as the Bush Administration claimed.
Most of the oil companies that benefited from the privatization of Iraqi oil are Kurdish, Turkish, and Chinese: so if the war was done for Anglo-oil interest it clearly wasn't done well or it was done only to break the back of OPEC by eliminating its second largest reserve member.
Despite the fact that Saddam was destroying his Scud missiles, America simply said "nope, its not fast enough and we are going to invade anyways": it indicates that there was clearly a desire for war, even if Saddam was giving into demands.
Now of course there was legitimate reasons such as the fact that Saddam was a brutal warmongering dictator; but Saddam wasn't the only one in the world, nor was he the worst, and more importantly American foreign policy only supports democracies to its advantage and is more than willing to cosy up to dictators (nothing unusual, just real-politics). Nonetheless the War in Iraq clearly wasn't for democracy nor to help the Iraqi people, even if they did benefit.
Or how the Bush Administration went in, toppled the previous regime, and just assumed that democracy would spring from the cracks in Iraq and they would be back in 4 months as heroes: it clearly shows some degree of denial and a lack of planning in the decision process. (we know how that went)
On VA, there's the problem of PMPs: especially as the Iraqi war employed them in mass. While I have no love for PMPs due to their lack of ROE they are still citizens, and more importantly disgruntled militarized citizens. I like to see less employment of PMPs, but at the same time more support offered fro existing PMPs: if black-opts soldiers are given support, then PMP personals should be entitled to it as well.

But the whole point of private military companies was the government could pay them once and screw the benefits. That's what contractors are good for, they just leave when they aren't needed anymore. Right?

No... America spends more on its military than any other nation on earth, it can easily afford to spend more (in fact both Democrats and Republicans want to). The problem is that it's a PR nightmare, since these PMCs have nothing but the bottom line plus their recruits are often the people discharged from the military for unacceptable conduct. Also, even if they aren't military they are still Americans who use America's welfare and live in the nation.

Sorry about that, I should have clarified more. I was being sarcastic. The use of contractors in place of soldiers and locals, (rebuilding their own country), is one of the worst things we did in these wars.

Nobody cares for war veterans who are affected in unpopular wars. These people fought in unnecessary wars. These wars are against people who were once allies and who were creations of neocons for controlling oil under the deserts. Unfortunately nobody writes about those locals affected in war zones.

First off I see some very ignorant and crude comments on veterans, which vexes me. I am an OEF/OIF/combat wounded veteran who suffers from PTSD and knows all too well the realities of war. There is a horrible stigma in general, that if you did not have your legs blown off then you are "okay". Well let me tell you as a person who deals with PTSD/TBI, it is not "okay". Every day is a challenge and there are days that you wish you were not even alive. Anything that damages the brain and changes your brain chemistry is a wound. I agree that there are some who file bogus claims and I have seen it as well. That is truly sad, but with any system created by humans there will be imperfections. Just look at our country and all the bogus social welfare programs there are for people who have no intentions to ever work. They do not care to ever contribute to the overall good of the masses and maintain our freedoms, which most under appreciate. At least for many veterans you can say they took action to commit to a cause that they believed was the selfless avenue in which they could give back, knowing it could be at the cost of their life. That is more than can be said for most that would rather just complain behind a desk or computer screen and be armchair quarterbacks.

War mongers are the neocons. In every war, they should be the first ones to be put in a uniform and placed in the very front of the front line. As sure as sure can be, there won't be any more wars if America takes this route. Healthy and fit young men, with whole life and future in front of them, losing their lives or getting disabled for nothing, for the sake of corporations that have eyes on wealth and resources belonging to other nations.

I'm a neocon. I went to Iraq for a year with the Army. A lot of guys I went with, the majority, would classify as some sort of conservative.

Many volunteered to go, everyone volunteered to serve knowing a trip downrange was inevitable.

many liberals either. And that's from my military experience, do what you want with it. But please, don't 'defend' us imagineto make a point most of us would not agree with. To a Soldier, the greatest injustice is letting their brothers die in a war we're not trying to win, and then squandering their sacrifices in a 'victory' withdrawal.

As for abuse of the disability system, it's a very real problem. It's discouraging and embarrassing but, who wants to incorrectly accuse a veteran of malingering and then have that Soldier kill himself. Society has a very laissez faire attitude towards anyone that claims mental distress. And the handful of malingerers cheapen the sacrifices of the many.

It's a hackneyed and unhelpful suggestion (for the status quo and the powers that be). You should add Abraham Lincoln's famous speech the Gettysburg Address to your list of unhelpful suggestions, as scholars often find parallels between it and Pericle's one. All of them excellent and delivered by some of the greatest politicians of all time, needless to say... I wouldn't dare to dismiss them as quickly as you do.

Been soldiering almost 20 years now. In that time and to this day the majority I've served with have been conservative minded people. I'm not sure what you mean by 'neocon' but, I imagine that's what I would be considered.

Liberals tend to have lofty ideas and are on a mission to save others from themselves. Conservatives believe freedom is being left alone, but standing up for what's right when called upon. Conservatives always believe in their country and if their country calls then it must be the right thing.

D rock, not all conservatives are NeoCons. The NeoCons are a faction in the GOP that pushed for the Iraq war and some other things. They were called Neo Conservatives because some of their policy positions did not reflect traditional conservative values. they have been mostly replaced by Tea Party Republicans. However some are still in congress, alongside traditional Republicans.

Likewise not all Liberals have lofty ideas and a rescue complex. Please don't fall head over heels for the rhetoric of the political parties. Remember when the rubber meets the road they are organizations with a goal of concentrating and preserving power.

By the way I'm one of your few who wasn't a conservative in a foxhole. ;)

Iraq & Afghanistan featured the first widespread use of flack vests. Visit any VA hospital and see how many younger amputees are sitting in the primary care module waiting rooms along with the all the older PTSD-suffering drunks and drug addicts from the Vietnam era.

Flak vests were used in Vietnam and prior to that. We now use bullet proof body armor. Huge difference. There's. Blackhawks, better first aid knowledge, an MRI in theater and outstanding surgeons that have the education from what was learned in prior wars. A volunteer force. More servicemen that feel pride in service compared to lowpoints during Vietnam where there were many draftees and rampant disapproval back home... But no flak vests, which if there were are only good for flak.

Absolutely correct on all counts. Thanks for putting more weight back of my point. I've seen the waiting rooms in West LA, Long Beach, San Diego, Loma Linda, Phoenix, Vegas and Fresno so far. It's =not= pretty... and it doesn't look to me like the system can handle it all.

The real problem is the American Psychiatric Association and its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Go ahead, think of any obscure symptom, however harmless, and it will be in there as a tell-tale sign for some bogus mental disorder. When a professional organization recognizes "gender identity disorder" as a legitimate disease, it's time to start from scratch and create a manual that isn't a model of quackery.

The DSM-IV and ICD-10 recognise 'gender identity disorder' (or 'gender dysphoria') because there are individuals who have issue with their biologial gender. These individuals will continue to exist whether you believe that they, the APA, and the WHO, are lying or not.

Similarly, whether you like it or not PTSD (or whatever one wishes to call it) exists, and, if un-noticed or un-treated, ruins lives.

The medical community is trying to help returning soldiers with both visible and 'invisible' wounds, and I am sure that most people would support their work.